Search results

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The study integrated neighborhood-level data on robbery and burglary gathered from local police agencies across the United States, foreclosure data from RealtyTrac (a real estate information company), and a wide variety of social, economic, and demographic control variables from multiple sources. Using census tracts to approximate neighborhoods, the study regressed 2009 neighborhood robbery and burglary rates on foreclosure rates measured for 2007-2008 (a period during which foreclosure spiked dramatically in the nation), while accounting for 2007 robbery and burglary rates and other control variables that captured differences in social, economic, and demographic context across American neighborhoods and cities for this period. The analysis was based on more than 7,200 census tracts in over 60 large cities spread across 29 states. Core research questions were addressed with a series of multivariate multilevel and single-level regression models that accounted for the skewed nature of neighborhood crime patterns and the well-documented spatial dependence of crime.

The study contains one data file with 8,198 cases and 99 variables.

The Assessment of National and State Tip Line Technology as a Strategy for Identifying Threats to School Safety was conducted by RTI International, in partnership with the Oregon State Police, from 2018 through 2021. The project was designed to describe the national prevalence and characteristics of school safety tip lines, and to develop lessons learned on successful implementation approaches by conducting a case study with the SafeOregon tip line. The three main goals of the project were to:

1. Describe the prevalence and variability of tip line technology in public middle and high schools across the U.S. through a national survey of school administrators (Component 1).
2. Evaluate the relationship between tip line technology implementation and school safety by augmenting the national survey data with publicly available data on student disciplinary and school safety outcomes from the Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) (Component 2).
3. Assess the implementation experiences, outputs, and costs through an in-depth case study in the state of Oregon (Component 3).

For component 1, RTI conducted a national survey of public middle and high school administrators. For component 2, RTI conducted a national evaluation of school tip lines and measures of school safety, merging the national survey findings with eleven offense categories schools reported to the Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC).

For Component 3, the team set out to better understand how tip lines are implemented, the characteristics or features of these systems, challenges school administrators face during implementation and use, and perceived effectiveness. Using a mixed-methods design, researchers analyzed the efforts to implement and operate Oregon's SafeOregon statewide school tip line program and present data from the national survey for context. Case study objectives included identifying the (1) prevalence and school characteristics of tip line use; (2) basic operational characteristics of tip lines, including partnerships, staffing, tip submission and triage processes, and anonymity and confidentiality; (3) barriers and challenges involved in tip line implementation; and (4) perceived impact of tip lines. This qualitative assessment was informed by interviews with key stakeholders, school administrators and students. As part of the final component, RTI analyzed tip line data from the SafeOregon statewide tip line program (2018-2020).

Data and documentation from the qualitative interviews (student focus groups and school-level stakeholders) will be made available at a future date.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2011, the reference date was Wednesday, October 26 (the last Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2013, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2015, the reference date was Wednesday, October 28 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2017, the reference date was Wednesday, October 25 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned to a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2019, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g., placing agency), the judicial process (e.g., court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g., age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g., facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2021, the reference date was Wednesday, October 27 (the fourth Wednesday in October).

Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level.

The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The purpose of the Census of Juveniles on Probation (CJP) was to collect individual-level data about youth on probation, including their numbers and characteristics. The CJP survey asked respondents to report the total number of juveniles on formal probation within their reporting jurisdiction on the reference date of October 24, 2012.

For each youth on probation, responding agencies were asked to provide the following information: sex, date of birth, race, most serious offense, state and county where most serious offense was committed, and the state and county where the juvenile resided on the census reference date.

This data collection contains the national data.

This study examined the laws, policies, and practices related to juvenile DNA collection, as well as their implications for the juvenile and criminal justice systems. DNA evidence proved valuable in solving crimes, which motivated a concerted effort to expand the categories of offenders who provided DNA samples for analysis and inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-operated national database.

State requirements for DNA collection, which initially focused on adult offenders convicted of sexual or violent offenses, expanded to include other categories of convicted felons, convicted misdemeanants, arrestees, and juveniles. In 30 states, certain categories of juveniles handled in the juvenile justice system must now provide DNA samples. The study was designed to explore the practice and implications of collecting DNA from juveniles and addressed the following questions:

1. How have state agencies, juvenile justice agencies and state laboratories implemented juvenile DNA collection laws?
2. What were the number and characteristics of juveniles with profiles included in CODIS?
3. How have juvenile profiles in CODIS contributed to public safety or other justice outcomes?
4. What improvements to policies and practices needed to be made?

To examine these questions, researchers at the Urban Institute: (1) systematically reviewed all state DNA statutes; (2) conducted semi-structured interviews with CODIS lab representatives in states that collect DNA from juveniles to understand how the laws were implemented; (3) collected and analyzed descriptive data provided by these labs on the volume and characteristics of juvenile profiles in CODIS; (4) conducted semi-structured interviews with juvenile and criminal justice stakeholders in five case study states; and (5) convened a meeting of federal officials and experts from the forensic and juvenile justice committees to explore the broader impacts of juvenile DNA collection.

This study used a multi-systems approach to understand the root causes of school violence in the state of Oregon (United States), accounting for factors within the individual, family, school, juvenile justice, child protective services, and social services systems and how they work together in predicting school violence. The effort was guided by four Research Questions:

1. What are the potential root causes and related factors that contribute to school violence?
2. What are the disciplinary responses to school violence, and are rates of suspensions and expulsions equivalent across demographic subgroups of students?
3. What is the sequence of events that lead from a school-related disciplinary incident to an arrest and to juvenile or adult court involvement and disposition, and which individual, family, school, and neighborhood factors influence this trajectory?
4. What are the responses to and consequences of shootings in K-12 public settings?

To answer these questions, RMC Research, with support from the the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) and the Oregon Department of Education (ODE), conducted a secondary analysis of existing data on 15 cohorts of students between kindergarten and grade 12. Research Questions 1, 2, and 3 were addressed using a multi-level cohort design with longitudinal data provided by OYA (n=5,129,815 observations across time from 855,580 unique youth). Research Question 4 was addressed through an extensive review of research on school safety strategies.

This collection contains 16 SPSS syntax files used to clean and analyze the secondary data, detailed guides to data preparation and data-related decisions made by the research team, and a list of obtained data files and variables. There are no data files in this collection.

Correctional officers (CO's) have high stress levels affecting their well-being and work performance. The longer-term adverse consequences of stress have been well documented. However, the immediate impacts of stress on CO's neurocognitive function have not been assessed (or among other law enforcement groups). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can measure ability to attend to relevant information when making decisions, especially when the context is emotionally charged. This study will use technology to understand the impact of CO's stress on their neurocognitive and physiological function.

The study builds on research from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-funded Oregon Healthy Workforce Center that established an index of chronic stress among more than 1330 Oregon CO's. Researchers will perform a prospective 18-month observational study among CO's from two facilities (n=400) to relate their stress levels to work characteristics, work performance and economic costs. Researchers will identify a sub-cohort of higher/lower stress CO's (total n=60) and compare their fMRI findings; researchers will measure their biomarkers to develop predictive indices of fMRI findings and chronic stress levels. The overarching goal is to understand and effectively reduce chronic stress among corrections officers (COs).

The study attempts to ask the following questions:

1. How did stress levels among COs relate to work contributors of stress and work performance?
2. What were the relationships between fMRI, biomarker tests and stress in higher and lower stress sub-cohorts?

Because there are few existing tools for assessing the risk of recidivism for youth with a history of sexual offending that are empirically valid and reliable, knowledge and practice in this area has historically been limited. This project examined current practice and policy in the assessment, treatment, and management of juvenile sex offenders across multiple jurisdictions (Florida, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). The researchers developed a prototype assessment tool, state-specific risk assessment models, and practical guidance for building a risk assessment for sexual recidivism in juvenile justice settings.

The data file contains individual records for the full sample (n=8,035), including their risk predictors, recidivism measures, and resulting outputs (i.e., predicted probabilities of sexual recidivism) from the risk models.

Guided by a life course perspective, this study used a mixed methodological approach (i.e., quantitative administrative data and qualitative interviews) to identify the differences in events, motivations, and experiences related to gang affiliation and the differences across (a) system-documented, gang-involved individuals, (b) system-documented gang-involved individuals who have gang-involved family members, and (c) other high-risk youth who are suspected of involvement. The overall goal of this research was to identify distinct pathways to gang activity that could inform practitioners and policymakers about useful intervention strategies. The study context was specific to Multnomah County, Oregon.

To achieve this, separate and distinct juvenile and adult systems databases were integrated to create critical linkages between juvenile services data (including risk assessments), adult community corrections data, and federal corrections data (n=2,210 individual records). This allowed for the examination of the trajectory of each individual - regardless of gang system documented gang status - from juvenile services through state adult corrections through federal adult corrections. It also permitted the investigation into the similarities or differences among different system-identified groups (i.e., gang involved, suspected gang involved, or no documentation of gang involvement). Additionally, the inclusion of familial and peer criminal justice records and system gang identification enabled the research team to control for family and peer influences while focusing on how the father's criminality and gang status might be a risk factor for youth criminal legal involvement and escalation into the adult system. Research questions for the quantitative data collection were:

1. What aspects of early criminal offending and other problematic behaviors differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
2. Are there significant differences in the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
3. Are there consistent age-related trends in risk as measured by the Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) tool? Do these trends vary by gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
4. What is the timing of important life events across the life course of justice-involved youth? Does the timing differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
5. Does the close proximity of the timing of these life events increase the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System? Do these predictions differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
6. How do parental offending and incarceration patterns predict their child's likelihood of becoming gang-affiliated and likelihood of escalation into the adult criminal justice system?
7. How do the answers to the above research questions vary by youth race, ethnicity, geography, and offense type?

In addition to quantitative measures of gang pathways, semi-structured interviews were conducted with two groups: gang-affiliated and gang-involved youth supervised in the Department of Community Justice Gang Unit during the study time period (n=32), and corrections staff who had current or previous experience working with gang-affiliated or gang-involved youth (n=12). Original research questions for the qualitative data collection were:

1. What are the critical transition periods for becoming gang-affiliated, and how are they experienced as an emotional event and/or a deliberate decision? How do these differ between individuals who have no criminal justice system involved family members, individuals with criminal justice involved family members, and individuals with gang-affiliated family members?
2. What is the relational and emotional experience of recruiting a familial relation to gang affiliation, and of being recruited by a familial relation to gang affiliation and gang activities?
3. What are the motivations for recruiting a familial relation into gang affiliation, and for allowing oneself to be successfully recruited by a family member?
4. What are the methods employed by gang-affiliated individuals in recruiting their family members?
5. Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in the event and experience of recruitment into gang affiliation and activities?
6. Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in their views and experiences of the criminal justice system?

Qualitative data will be made available in a future update.

Bullying behaviors are common among adolescents and are associated with numerous negative health and social consequences that can persist into adulthood for victims, bullies and bystanders. More recently, bullying behaviors have migrated to online platforms where they are not well understood and lack standardized definitions. Thus, current efforts to understand prevalence and promote appropriate policies lack a strong evidence base.

By applying Concept Mapping and recruiting participants, including adolescents and professionals representing education, health and the justice system, the study team attempts to fills these gaps by creating a standardized definition of electronic harassment and an associated measurement tool. Further outcomes will include several manuscripts describing the findings submitted to health and social science conferences and journals, and dissemination efforts involving community leaders and local media. Upon successful completion of these objectives the diverse and multidisciplinary research team will disseminate these findings in the public health, education and policy arenas.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study evaluates the impacts of re-entry programs developed by seven grantees awarded funds under the Second Chance Act (SCA) Adult Demonstration Program to reduce recidivism by addressing the challenges faced by adults returning to their communities after incarceration.

The collection contains 3 SAS data files: admin30.sas(n=966; 111 variables), MIS.sas(n=606; 48 variables), and survey.sas(n=789; 273 variables) and 1 SAS syntax file.

The evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles, beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherence to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions. Treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity, tested outcomes (primarily recidivism), and estimated costs.

1,504 individuals who met eligibility criteria for HOPE were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Phases of the study included a process evaluation with fidelity analysis, outcomes evaluation, and cost evaluation. Data collection activities included site visits, documentation review, stakeholder interviews, procuring administrative records, conducting interviews for probationers at three different timepoints (baseline, 6 months, 12 months), drug testing oral swabs, and a weekly telephone-based interview with a subset of probationers to assess attitudinal changes.